campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Introduction
Welcome to the new Campaigns Wikia! ' This is an amazing and cutting-edge opportunity for all of us to take part in the move from "broadcast politics & media" to "''participatory politics & media." Since this is a brand-new effort, let's take the opportunity to discuss WHAT WE WANT from this site, and this budding movement. So here goes. Let's keep our posts clear and thoughtful, and lets co-create an amazing resource for all of us! 'When you click on a topic from the main Campaigns Wikia page, what information do you want to see? ' I want to see... * Inventories of political advertising. People ask, "Did you hear/see that new ad from Tester/Burns (running for Senate here in Montana)?" and the answer is almost always no. Getting them catalogued and posted somewhere their content and financing can be analyzed seems to me the best way to transition from broadcast politics to participatory politics. * I like the "Perspectives" format on the Social Security and Environmental protection pages. Obviously, we need more "objective" info about each topic, as well as a place for back-and-forth debate, but the "Perspectives" is really cool because you can see the variety of where people are coming from, and share your own belief without feeling invalidated by an argument starting right away. Let's keep this as one of the many facets of our evolving creation! * Very few political parties cross national boundaries. Are there not people from China, France, America, Liberia, Chile or wherever that share the same beliefs? Perhaps this wiki/forum may be the debut of enabling people of similar political persuasions to organize locally, nationally and '''globally... Theo 17:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC) * Thoughtful, personal perspectives from different individuals (75.13.98.156 02:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)) * Recommendations for further reading (75.13.98.156 02:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)) * Rational points of view expressed in well formatted pages, meaning absolutely no personal anecdotes. Debates should be completely factual, people who hinder, or dumb down the debate should be expulsed. Also, a separation of debate from PoV, or this entire project will be destroyed by an influx of badly formed opinion, and nothing will be understandable. And, who will be responsible for determining the "quality" of the "formed opinion"? * Open minds and users who are willing to agree to disagree. Good Luck! * A link between issues and the politicians that are involved and/or represent me * Pages organized in such a way that those of us who want to get active in a local area will know who is running against whom, what the chances are for an upset, and what grassroots people think about the different candidates. In other words, a resource to guide people towards activisim which is organized by State and congressional district. --Tom Brown 07:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC) * Cosmopolitan perspectives and international content to provide a global forum for the ideas that are evolving here --Nickc 12:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC) * I'd love to see a community created, standardized questionnaire for each race (Presidential, Congressional, etc) with a wide range of topics and hot button issues that each Candidate, their representative, or the community (Backed up with facts, quotes, links, voting history, etc) --JasonLR 13:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC) * Traditionally contentious subject brought to life by study and analysis aimed at understanding, rather than killed off by invective and posturing --Dunstan 14:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC) * Thoughtful debates where people revise and polish their positions based on others' input, and not just talking at an audience! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC) * List of countries, political parties, candidates and their platforms so that voters can get informed on their platforms (or lack thereof!) and make informed decisions. * A well structured, comprehensive taxonomy of all the issues. For each political issue: (1) a summary of the issue that all sides can agree is "as neutral as possible", (2) a representation of each "side's" opinion and perspective in the issue, (3) a solid description of the "common ground" (divisive politics tries to pretend there is no common ground, which is what IMHO kills debate) in the debate, (4) a respectful back-and-forth where both groups try to separate "spin" from fact. In the end the reader, armed with both sides and as much information as possible, can actually DECIDE where s/he stands. * Clear lines between neutral, factual description of issues, on the one hand, and normative views on the other. Maybe each topic (e.g. education, or at a more concrete level, for example, school choice/vouchers, or busing, or the fairness concerns about property taxes being used to fund schools) could have two sections -- a facts section up front, and then a second part following in which people sort of sympathetically reconstruct or expound the various normative points of view that exist on an issue. That way, readers and the writers themselves could get clear about where the differences really are. -- Dgrobinson 00:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC) * A comprehensive one-stop shop for political information organized with the "wants to be well informed voter" in mind. Ideally, this information will be critiqued by so many wikireaders/wikieditors that it becomes free of political bias/posturing, misinformation, lies, & hogwash. I'm SO looking forward to this! * An area within each category to pose questions and receive answers to them. * Calls for volunteers or suggestions as to how the public might assist in promoting or fighting an issue. * Discussion on Campaign Finance Reform * Discussion on (or dissection of) Political Talk Radio - both right and left - a site like this should cut them both down to size. How will this Wiki differ from that of Wikipedia? This is easy. For some editors (not everyone), Wikipedia is their first wiki, and some of them do not understand that wiki and encyclopedia are different concepts. Not every wiki is an encyclopedia. Neither is Campaigns Wikia. * Campaigns Wikia is not an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. * Wikipedia already has plenty of facts about political events. Campaigns Wikia can contain not only facts, but campaigns, statements of beliefs, reasons to vote for a candidate. * Campaigns Wikia brings together communities that... campaign. Wikipedia only brings together those working on encyclopedia articles. Many editors here do not work on Wikipedia. * Wikipedia has plenty of facts, but it is not geared toward political debate. Usually it gives very brief overviews of varying perspectives, and only includes the major voices on any given issue. This wiki hears your voice. With this wiki, we can more deeply explore arguments from all sides of an issue. These things are the same on both Campaigns Wikia and Wikipedia: the site runs the MediaWiki software and you can edit any page. Both sites use the GNU Free Documentation License, and you can reuse material from Wikipedia at Campaigns Wikia if you give credit with the tag. If you want a political encyclopedia, try Issuepedia. What inherent hazards are there in public political discourse that need to be addressed, and how should they be? * Values are personal, not debatable.